Not that I am aware of Ben. But I'm sure that debunking Harris thinking on torture and the use of force would be a no-brainer for him. It would be for me thanks at least in part to him. That's my conclusion. Not that the critique of fundamentalism isn't necessary. It could always be more skillful however. Perhaps someday when I feel bulletproof I will get to it.

Thanks for that vid tex, i think i can understand what he means now, if something is ultimately true then it must transcend culture (i.e. its not christian physics since its true not matter who or where you are) which of course is what the Dhamma is, the truth of the way it is

I think he means that it needs to be removed from the percieved notion of belonging to a certain culture or being thought of as just another belief system, which if i am correct in understanding what he means, i actually kinda agree with

p.s. there is another good video of his here (if this breaks some kind of copyright please remove it)

I also think that it is the intention that matters. When you are practicing meditation to relieve your day-to-day ailments you are doing 'meditation'; when you're doing it to escape samsara, you're practicing 'Buddhist meditation'. I think Sam Harris is referring to the former. In any case, he's a brilliant guy to read to and listen to - clear and articulate. I think he attracts some negative criticism from many atheists for his pro/agnostic view of reincarnation/rebirth.

“The incomparable Wheel of Dhamma has been set in motion by the Blessed One in the deer sanctuary at Isipatana, and no seeker, brahmin, celestial being, demon, god, or any other being in the world can stop it.”

He's a reasonably intelligent atheist. Does that make him an expert on meditation, or Buddhism?

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days; I fled Him, down the arches of the years; I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways, Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears, I hid from Him, and under running laughter. Up vistaed hopes I sped; And shot, precipitated, Adown Titanic glooms of chasmèd fears, From those strong Feet that followed, followed after. But with unhurrying chase, And unperturbèd pace, Deliberate speed, majestic instancy, They beat - and a Voice beat - More instant than the Feet - ‘All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.’

Someone told me to watch a video of his, so I obliged. He began by apologizing for being frank about religion, then went on to say that at most public forums in America it is taboo to criticize religion and this needed to change. "Well," I thought, "there's a reason for that... just like how you don't want to bring up politics when you visit your friends on the other side of the country. Ideologies can be firmly held and prone to heated emotion, and that's just human nature." I consider it both acceptable and useful to hear criticisms of what Buddhists do, but if someone just says "the dharma is shit and anyone who tries to follow it is wasting their time," which is basically what Christopher Hitchens does in his book, I think that is offensive; he has the freedom to say it, but it's not helpful and doesn't belong in a public forum. So, Sam Harris started out on a bad foot.

He went on to talk about absurd claims people make about specific cults. And his argument struck me as little more than pure smugness. He was describing a Hindu guru movement, which is something that is quite common in India, but I highly doubt he had actually met with any of the members of this cult, lived with their families, or asked them to describe the influence it had on their lives. He most likely just read something in a book or on the Internet and brought that to his talk. He said, "this cult has 1 million followers, and they're all deluded". Who exactly is supposed to benefit from that statement? I think the purpose of saying that is to make atheists feel better about themselves, and nothing else. If it gets religious people angry the atheists will only feel even better.

People should be free to live their lives according to whatever ideology they think suitable, be it Buddhism, Christianity, Marxism, or humanism. And people should be allowed to criticize freely the fruits of these ideologies. But there is absolutely nothing helpful to claim that "if it's not atheist, it can't be good". There are many things atheists have done that are not good, and there are many things done in the name of religion that are good. So, I would disagree strongly that the qualifier "Buddhist" should be dropped from meditation. If you lose the Buddhist ideology, it simply becomes something that you are being told to do without any reason why. We know what "just sit" means in the context of Zen, but if that context is discarded we might as well be saying "just pray", or "just daydream", or "just sleep", and calling that a mental practice. That is scarcely beneficial to anyone.